> Acording to his biblography, carlson seems not to know much (any?) german literature about Hegel.
>
> For the 1st third of the logic of essence,
> I reconend the books mentioned at
>
> http://wiki.hegel-system.de/index.php/Reflexion_in_sich
>
> For discussion of "grund" especialy roh's book "form und grund".
>
> All the best
> Kai
>
> Am 11.01.2013 um 20:37 schrieb "bart_zantvoort" bartfw.zantvoort@...>:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I just had a look at Carlson's book, and my thoughts are the following.
> >
> > I'm quite familiar with the Science of Logic, and so I wanted to use it as a reference for some passage which I found very difficult; the chapter on 'Grund' in this case. It is my impression the book is not very suited for this: I just skipped ahead to the relevant section, and found Carlson's commentary extremely unhelpful. He is translating Hegel, whose vocabulary I know, into another vocabulary which I don't know. So I would maybe have to read Carlson's book from the beginning, but that would be a bit much to ask.
> >
> > Second, I got annoyed by the way he quotes secondary literature. He just keeps throwing in quotes which have no particular relevance, other than that he thought is is nicely phrased, from a wide variety of sources seemingly randomly applied.
> >
> > I admit I gave up rather quickly, being immediately turned off by this, so if you think my criticism is unfair let me know. And so that leaves me looking for a good commentary on the chapters on reflection and ground, so if you know of any in English or German please let me know.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Bart
> >
> > --- In hegel@yahoogroups.com, "wyate53" wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Everyone,
> >>
> >> I keep fooling myself into thinking that someday I'll eventually finish the Phenomenology and start the Logic, and have been on the prowl for guides to the Logic for years. The only full-scale one I have found is David Gray Carlson's A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic. But before committing to buying this very expensive book, I wanted to know if any of you Hegelians are aware of it and can warn me if it's useless (if, e.g., he subscribes to the "Hegel was not a metaphysician" school of analytic apologists). The fact that he teaches law rather than German Idealism makes me wary; but I can't find any alternative. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Will
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Homepage: http://hegel.net
> > Hegel mailing lists: http://Hegel.net/en/ml.htm
> > Listowners Homepage: http://kai.in
> > Group policy:
> > slightly moderated, only plain Text (no HTML/RTF), no attachments,
> > only Hegel related mails, scientific level intended.
> >
> > Particpants are expected to show a respectfull and scientific attitude both to Hegel and to each other. The usual "netiquette" as well as scientific standards apply.
> >
> > The copyright policy for mails sent to this list is same as for Hegel.Net, that is the copyright of the mails belongs to the author and hegel.net. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify the mails of this list under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version, published by the Free Software Foundation. The mails are also licensed under a Creative Commons License and under the Creative Commons Developing Nations license (see footer of http://hegel.net/en/e0.htm ) Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>